Harry due in court on Monday 23rd January 2012 (merged)

[RandomJ]

Just been catching up on this. Did he really use the excuse he was too busy thinking about how to mark David Beckham when doing his taxes?!!

Surely his high paid lawyer can think of something better than that.

 

[bluemiester]

I repeat :)

I'm not a tax lawyer, but there has to be sufficient evidence he is guilty in order to convict. I think people think there is more to this case than there is and that it's more technical than it seems. But really it's come down to wheter or not he meant to avoid paying tax on a relatively small amount of money or not. Was it a loan or payment is also important as it changes the amount of tax owed and who has done the most wrong out of Mandaric and Redknapp. If it was a payment then Harry didn't really stand to gain, so Mandaric will get most of the blame. If it's deemed a loan then Harry hasn't paid the tax on the profit, which I beliieve is about £10,000. But even the most anti Redknapp types must find it tough to believe that was done deliberately, given he informed HRMC about the account and nothing else has been found.

He may get a fine or he might get nothing. But either way I find it very difficult to see how you can really think he's guilty per se. If he gtes a fine it will be for being an idiot, rather than deliberate tax evader. There just doesn't seem to be sufficient motive and the evidence against him seems to be nothing more than the NOTW interview. The way he dealt with the account itself seems perfectly in line with his previous business dealings. It just seems incredibly strange that a guy who has paid £8 million in tax would go to all that effort for the sake of £10,000. It looks even odder given they went through about a decade of his earnings and found nothing.

It seems to me people think he's guilty becasue they don't like him. I don't like him either, but the justice system can't work like that. In my opinion people need to start coming around to the idea that he's innocent and has been treated badly. I definitely thnk he's dodgy guy and wouldn't be at all surprised if he tooks bungs etc in the past. But this time he looks innocent to me.

There is no point debating here as we'll end up as the defence and prosectution and it will get tedious. But if he does get off, people should known that there really was very little to convict him with and it's been a bit unfair on him.

its more than 10 grand tax its 40% of 190 grand. if it was a loan why set up an account in a tax haven and not declare it? why register the account in the name of a dog? assuming redknapp was getting a wage why not loan him the money into that account? why did harry not tell his accountant who supposedly took care of all his finances, which i would imagine would also include knowing the need for the claimed loan about the monaco account? he set up the account he knew and transfered money from the account and still never declared it. if he wasnt dodging tax what was he doing exactly?

It's only 40% of £190,000 if they were payments. If this is the case then Redknapp is ok, as Mandaric has already said he told Harry the tax was paid. Also what would be the benefit for Harry, as he'd just be saving Pompey the tax, not himself. He did tell his accoutant but years later. But he's shown he's done lots of deals without telling his accoutant or lawyer. He's also shown in his past business dealing that it's perfectly normal for him to just leave the deal to someone esle to look after and effectively forget about it. There is nothing wrong with any of this and there is nothing dodgy about it.

The fact that it was set up in a tax haven and given a name (in this case after his dog) aren't dodgy either, though some just assume it is. Why do people care that he named it after his dog or thin it has anything to do with him guilty or not? It's as if people think that is dodgy! It's not like he opened the account in his dogs name. He named the account after his dog. There is a huge difference. Mandaric was the one controlling the money and he has other accounts in Monaco connected to BrownStar. Harry never transferred the money and Mandaric had confirmed what Harry said all along which was that the tax had been paid.

People seem so determined to find foul play in this on behalf of Redknapp that they are being blinded to the absurdity of it. People do cheat tax. Rich people cheat tax. But you'd be hard pressed to find many cases like this one. Most tax frauds make sense eventually. The money saved is often a large chunk of the cheats income, there is condeming evidence, motives are found (ie debts) etc. This "swindle" would go down as one the most pointless in history. We aren't talking about some guy doing work cash in hand to hide from the tax man. This is a multi millionaire going to the inconvinience of setting up and account in Monaco to avoid paying a small amount of tax, when a previous investigation of hs finances showed everything was in order. And on top of that, he effectively grasses himself up.

 

[mcnab-sees-red]

I'm not a tax lawyer, but there has to be sufficient evidence he is guilty in order to convict. I think people think there is more to this case than there is and that it's more technical than it seems. But really it's come down to wheter or not he meant to avoid paying tax on a relatively small amount of money or not. Was it a loan or payment is also important as it changes the amount of tax owed and who has done the most wrong out of Mandaric and Redknapp. If it was a payment then Harry didn't really stand to gain, so Mandaric will get most of the blame. If it's deemed a loan then Harry hasn't paid the tax on the profit, which I beliieve is about £10,000. But even the most anti Redknapp types must find it tough to believe that was done deliberately, given he informed HRMC about the account and nothing else has been found.

He may get a fine or he might get nothing. But either way I find it very difficult to see how you can really think he's guilty per se. If he gtes a fine it will be for being an idiot, rather than deliberate tax evader. There just doesn't seem to be sufficient motive and the evidence against him seems to be nothing more than the NOTW interview. The way he dealt with the account itself seems perfectly in line with his previous business dealings. It just seems incredibly strange that a guy who has paid £8 million in tax would go to all that effort for the sake of £10,000. It looks even odder given they went through about a decade of his earnings and found nothing.

It seems to me people think he's guilty becasue they don't like him. I don't like him either, but the justice system can't work like that. In my opinion people need to start coming around to the idea that he's innocent and has been treated badly. I definitely thnk he's dodgy guy and wouldn't be at all surprised if he tooks bungs etc in the past. But this time he looks innocent to me.

There is no point debating here as we'll end up as the defence and prosectution and it will get tedious. But if he does get off, people should known that there really was very little to convict him with and it's been a bit unfair on him.

its more than 10 grand tax its 40% of 190 grand. if it was a loan why set up an account in a tax haven and not declare it? why register the account in the name of a dog? assuming redknapp was getting a wage why not loan him the money into that account? why did harry not tell his accountant who supposedly took care of all his finances, which i would imagine would also include knowing the need for the claimed loan about the monaco account? he set up the account he knew and transfered money from the account and still never declared it. if he wasnt dodging tax what was he doing exactly?

It's only 40% of £190,000 if they were payments. If this is the case then Redknapp is ok, as Mandaric has already said he told Harry the tax was paid. Also what would be the benefit for Harry, as he'd just be saving Pompey the tax, not himself. He did tell his accoutant but years later. But he's shown he's done lots of deals without telling his accoutant or lawyer. He's also shown in his past business dealing that it's perfectly normal for him to just leave the deal to someone esle to look after and effectively forget about it. There is nothing wrong with any of this and there is nothing dodgy about it.

The fact that it was set up in a tax haven and given a name (in this case after his dog) aren't dodgy either, though some just assume it is. Why do people care that he named it after his dog or thin it has anything to do with him guilty or not? It's as if people think that is dodgy! It's not like he opened the account in his dogs name. He named the account after his dog. There is a huge difference. Mandaric was the one controlling the money and he has other accounts in Monaco connected to BrownStar. Harry never transferred the money and Mandaric had confirmed what Harry said all along which was that the tax had been paid.

People seem so determined to find foul play in this on behalf of Redknapp that they are being blinded to the absurdity of it. People do cheat tax. Rich people cheat tax. But you'd be hard pressed to find many cases like this one. Most tax frauds make sense eventually. The money saved is often a large chunk of the cheats income, there is condeming evidence, motives are found (ie debts) etc. This "swindle" would go down as one the most pointless in history. We aren't talking about some guy doing work cash in hand to hide from the tax man. This is a multi millionaire going to the inconvinience of setting up and account in Monaco to avoid paying a small amount of tax, when a previous investigation of hs finances showed everything was in order. And on top of that, he effectively grasses himself up.

In your first paragraph you state he has done loads of deals without telling his lawyer. He has stated he leaves it all to them. Not even read his contract.

Why not open the account in his own name,indeed if he leaves all his dealings to others why was he opening the account at all?

And yes,people do cheat tax, rich people do cheat tax.And yes this is a multi millionaire taking the time to open an account in Monaco. Why?

 

[Frank the Yank]

How long is the trial expected to last?? Is it a trial by judge or jury? if convicted, does he face any chance of jail time???

 

[TCIB]

How long is the trial expected to last?? Is it a trial by judge or jury? if convicted, does he face any chance of jail time???

They could have a judgement by tuesday ssn says.

 

[mcnab-sees-red]

How long is the trial expected to last?? Is it a trial by judge or jury? if convicted, does he face any chance of jail time???

He has a jury trail. Summing up on Monday then it goes to twelve good men and true. Could get jail, poss three years but I am not sure about the actual penalties.

 

[TFC]

My money is on him walking away with the minimal punishment.

 

[bluemiester]

its more than 10 grand tax its 40% of 190 grand. if it was a loan why set up an account in a tax haven and not declare it? why register the account in the name of a dog? assuming redknapp was getting a wage why not loan him the money into that account? why did harry not tell his accountant who supposedly took care of all his finances, which i would imagine would also include knowing the need for the claimed loan about the monaco account? he set up the account he knew and transfered money from the account and still never declared it. if he wasnt dodging tax what was he doing exactly?

It's only 40% of £190,000 if they were payments. If this is the case then Redknapp is ok, as Mandaric has already said he told Harry the tax was paid. Also what would be the benefit for Harry, as he'd just be saving Pompey the tax, not himself. He did tell his accoutant but years later. But he's shown he's done lots of deals without telling his accoutant or lawyer. He's also shown in his past business dealing that it's perfectly normal for him to just leave the deal to someone esle to look after and effectively forget about it. There is nothing wrong with any of this and there is nothing dodgy about it.

The fact that it was set up in a tax haven and given a name (in this case after his dog) aren't dodgy either, though some just assume it is. Why do people care that he named it after his dog or thin it has anything to do with him guilty or not? It's as if people think that is dodgy! It's not like he opened the account in his dogs name. He named the account after his dog. There is a huge difference. Mandaric was the one controlling the money and he has other accounts in Monaco connected to BrownStar. Harry never transferred the money and Mandaric had confirmed what Harry said all along which was that the tax had been paid.

People seem so determined to find foul play in this on behalf of Redknapp that they are being blinded to the absurdity of it. People do cheat tax. Rich people cheat tax. But you'd be hard pressed to find many cases like this one. Most tax frauds make sense eventually. The money saved is often a large chunk of the cheats income, there is condeming evidence, motives are found (ie debts) etc. This "swindle" would go down as one the most pointless in history. We aren't talking about some guy doing work cash in hand to hide from the tax man. This is a multi millionaire going to the inconvinience of setting up and account in Monaco to avoid paying a small amount of tax, when a previous investigation of hs finances showed everything was in order. And on top of that, he effectively grasses himself up.

In your first paragraph you state he has done loads of deals without telling his lawyer. He has stated he leaves it all to them. Not even read his contract.

Why not open the account in his own name,indeed if he leaves all his dealings to others why was he opening the account at all?

And yes,people do cheat tax, rich people do cheat tax.And yes this is a multi millionaire taking the time to open an account in Monaco. Why?

He did open the account in his name! There is nothing dodgy in the account name at all. It's a mildly humorous point the media have picked up on, that some people have misunderstood to be something dodgy. The media just though it was funny he named the account after his dog. Yet many have taken this to mean he opened the account under a false name.

He didn't say he leaves all hs deals to his lawyer. He gave examples of stuff he showed his lawyers only after he did them. He gets himself into a mess, hence he lets his accountant and lawyer deal with all his bills and contracts etc.

He's explained why the account was opened in Monaco and again it's not suspicious or strange.

The only point of real contention in this case is was they money a loan or a payment. If it was a loan did Harry deliberately try and void paying the tax on the profit? If it was a payment, then why didn't he pay the tax? Virtually all the rest, all the media soundbites we've heard etc are almost irrelevant. It's amazing that so many people genuinely seem to think he's guilty and think things such as the account being named after his pet dog or that Harry says he can't send an email are somehow important or imply guilt!

 

[mcnab-sees-red]

His name is not Rosie.

What deals did this self confessed illitrate do himself and why?

What was the explanation for the account again?

So, once again did he avoid the tax, the only really relevant question.

Let the jury decide. Dum Dum DUUUMM

 

[bluemiester]

His name is not Rosie.

What deals did this self confessed illitrate do himself and why?

What was the explanation for the account again?

So, once again did he avoid the tax, the only really relevant question.

Let the jury decide. Dum Dum DUUUMM

He did not open the account under tha name Rosie. He called the account Rosie. You could open an account in your name and then call it what the hell you like.

It was opened for an invesment managed by Mandaric. It's often easier to have an off shore account depending on the type of investment. There is nothing worng or suspiocus about this. Lots of people have off shore accounts for all manner of reasons and not just tax avoidance.

They know the tax wasn't paid, the question remains, did he intentionally avoid it. The evidence saying he did isn't at all strong. The evidence that he didn't seems much more plausible. But even if it wasn't intentional, that doesn't mean he'll get of scot free. He might get a fine for getting himself into this mess, as ultimately it's his responsibility to pay his tax.